Dermatologist and Patient Preferences in Choosing Treatments for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis

Evaluating prevalence and consequence of residual disease in individuals with psoriasis receiving apremilast treatment: results from a US patient survey

Purpose: This noninterventional, cross-sectional survey estimated the prevalence and consequences of residual disease in apremilast-treated US adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Materials and Methods: Residual disease was defined as experiencing moderate, severe, or very severe psoriasis over the past week or having ≥3% body surface area affected, despite treatment. Factors associated with residual disease and its effects on flare-ups, humanistic burden, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) were evaluated. Results: Of the 344 apremilast users (mean age, 44.9 years; female, 65.4%), 174 (50.6%) had residual disease. It was more prevalent in Black versus White participants (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6-12.2), those receiving apremilast for ≥1 versus <1 year (OR, 16.5; 95% CI, 7.9-34.4), those reporting ≥2 versus 0 to 1 flare-ups during the past 3 months (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 5.0-20.1), and those with ≥4 versus 1 to 3 body regions affected at time of survey (OR, 8.6; 95% CI, 3.8-19.8). Participants with versus without residual disease self-reported more psoriasis flare-ups over the past 3 months (mean, 4.7 vs 0.9; p < .001) and more anxiety (89.7% vs 50.0%; p < .001) and depression (69.0% vs 23.6%; p < .001) over the past 30 days. Conclusion: Generally, participants with versus without residual disease also had significantly more comorbidities and greater HCRU.

A randomized, double-blinded, phase 2 trial of EDP1815, an oral immunomodulatory preparation of Prevotella histicola, in adults with mild-to-moderate plaque psoriasis

Background

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease. EDP1815 is an oral, gut-restricted preparation of non-live Prevotella histicola, the first of a new immunomodulatory therapeutic class targeting the small intestine to generate systemic anti-inflammatory responses.

Objective

To evaluate safety and efficacy of EDP1815 in mild-to-moderate psoriasis in a proof-of-concept study.

Methods

A phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study with a 16-week treatment period and up to 24 weeks of follow-up. Participants were randomized to receive 1, 4, or 10 capsules daily.

Results

EDP1815 was well tolerated with comparable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events to placebo, and no drug-related serious adverse events. Clinically meaningful responses to EDP1815, defined as at least 50% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-50) at week 16, were observed in all 3 cohorts, statistically significant in the 1-capsule (29.7%; P = 0.048) and 4-capsule (31.9%; P = 0.022) groups, compared with placebo (12.1%). Among EDP1815-treated PASI-50 responders at week 16, 60% (18/30) maintained or improved off-treatment responses at week 40.

Limitations

Continued off-treatment improvement past 16 weeks shows potential for greater therapeutic benefit that was not assessed.

Conclusion

EDP1815 was well-tolerated with a placebo-like safety profile, and had meaningful efficacy outcomes in psoriasis, validating this novel immunomodulatory approach.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=NCT04603027, identifier NCT04603027.

Unmet Needs and Treatment Preference of Systemic Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis from the Perspectives of Patients and Dermatologists in China

INTRODUCTION

The treatment options for moderate to severe psoriasis (msPsO) in China have been greatly increased with the approvals of biologics. However, the unmet needs and treatment preferences of systemic treatments for msPsO in China remain unclarified.

METHODS

Fifty dermatologists and 300 patients with msPsO (41% with severe psoriasis) were surveyed for effectiveness, safety, treatment convenience, and treatment preferences (using a choice-based conjoint questionnaire). Descriptive statistics and conjoint simulation analyses were employed to summarize survey information and assess treatment preferences.

RESULTS

Both patients and dermatologists reported shorter treatment duration for oral drugs (2.7-6.2 months) than that for biologics (9.5-17.0 months). The most frequently reported treatment discontinuation reasons by the surveyed patients and dermatologists were unsatisfactory effectiveness (average 84.5%) for oral drugs and loss of efficacy over time (average 68.5%) for biologics. Commonly reported treatment inconveniences included regular lab tests for traditional oral drugs (average 71.5%) and administration assistance for biologics (average 58.0%). Injection site reactions (average 51.5%) and needle fear (average 35.5%) were frequently reported for biologics among the surveyed patients and dermatologists. Once-daily oral treatment was preferred over biweekly subcutaneous injection treatment when the two had comparable attributes (average in patients 87.1% vs. 12.9%; average in dermatologists 93.4% vs. 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Unmet needs of systemic treatments remain for msPsO in China. Once-daily oral treatment is preferred over biweekly subcutaneous injections to treat msPsO when other treatment attributes are comparable.

Evaluating Treatment Choice in Patients with Moderate to Severe Psoriasis in the United States: Results from a US Patient Survey

INTRODUCTION

While multiple treatments are available for moderate to severe psoriasis, patient preferences are rarely systematically studied. This study aims to identify factors associated with choice of a new once-daily oral psoriasis treatment, elicit patient views on treatment characteristics, and rank treatment characteristics by importance.

METHODS

This noninterventional, cross-sectional survey study, conducted from December 2021 to June 2022, recruited US adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and perspectives on psoriasis treatment were collected. Factors associated with the choice of a new oral treatment were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Treatment characteristics and reasons for treatment choice were ranked using bivariate comparisons.

RESULTS

The study included 882 participants [mean (standard deviation; SD) age, 45.7 (12.8) years; female, 67.7%; White, 74.9%]; 92.7% were currently receiving treatment [mean (SD) duration, 2.9 (4.8) years]. Half of participants rated their psoriasis symptoms over the past week as mild, very mild, or nonexistent; 36.5% as moderate; and 12.7% as severe or very severe. Most (66.5%) indicated willingness to start a new oral treatment; 65.0% indicated that the new oral treatment would cause less anxiety than injections/infusions. Participants were significantly more likely to start the new oral treatment if they were currently receiving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [odds ratio (OR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-3.1] or ustekinumab (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.6-5.0) versus apremilast (P < 0.001) or if they reported mild (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 2.0-4.9), moderate (OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 3.1-8.2), or severe (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 3.9-15.0) psoriasis symptoms compared with those who reported no symptoms in the past week (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most participants indicated willingness to start a new once-daily oral treatment, viewing it as less anxiety provoking than injections/infusions. Current treatment and psoriasis severity affected participants' willingness to start a new oral treatment.

Comparison of risankizumab and apremilast for the treatment of adults with moderate plaque psoriasis eligible for systemic therapy: results from a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded phase IV study (IMMpulse)

BACKGROUND

Treatment of psoriasis with risankizumab has demonstrated superior efficacy to other treatments, such as adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the efficacy and safety of risankizumab and apremilast in adults with moderate plaque psoriasis eligible for systemic therapy. It also evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to risankizumab vs. continuing apremilast in patients who did not achieve ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75 nonresponders) after 16 weeks of treatment with apremilast.

METHODS

This 52-week, phase IV, multicentre, randomized, open-label, efficacy assessor-blinded study (NCT04908475) enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of moderate chronic plaque psoriasis (≥ 6 months) and who were candidates for systemic therapy. The enrolled patients (randomized 1 : 2) received subcutaneous risankizumab (150 mg at weeks 0 and 4) or oral apremilast (30 mg twice daily). At week 16, all patients treated with apremilast were re-randomized (1 : 1) to risankizumab or apremilast, stratified by week-16 PASI 75 response. The co-primary outcomes in period A at week 16 were the achievement of ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) and static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) 0/1 with a two-grade or better improvement from baseline. At week 52, the primary endpoint in period B was the achievement of PASI 90 in PASI 75 nonresponders with apremilast at week 16. Safety was monitored throughout the study. All patients who received one dose of treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analysis.

RESULTS

At baseline, 118 and 234 patients were assigned to receive risankizumab and apremilast, respectively. At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved by 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.0-64.9] and 5.1% (95% CI 2.3-8.0), and sPGA 0/1 by 75.4% (95% CI 67.7-83.2) and 18.4% (95% CI 13.4-23.3), respectively. In period B, among PASI 75 nonresponders with apremilast at week 16, 83 switched to risankizumab and 78 continued apremilast. At week 52, 72.3% (95% CI 62.7-81.9) who switched to risankizumab achieved PASI 90 vs. 2.6% (95% CI 0.0-6.1) who continued apremilast. The most frequent adverse events (reported in ≥ 5%) in risankizumab-treated patients were COVID-19 infection and nasopharyngitis. Diarrhoea, nausea and headache were most frequent among apremilast-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with moderate psoriasis, treatment with risankizumab demonstrated superior efficacy to those treated with apremilast, including those who did not benefit from prior treatment with apremilast. The safety profile of risankizumab was similar to prior studies, and no new safety signals were identified. These results show that, compared with apremilast, risankizumab treatment can significantly improve clinical outcomes in systemic-eligible patients with moderate psoriasis.

Determining patient value profiles in psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) should strive to create the maximum value for their patients in which value is defined as the patient-relevant health outcomes achieved per costs made. However, currently it remains difficult to determine which outcomes matter to an individual psoriasis patient.

OBJECTIVE

To define outcome profiles, or so called 'patient value profiles', within a cohort of psoriasis patients that can be translated to daily practice to increase value for the individual patient.

METHODS

Hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC) was used to identify groups of patients sharing the same profile within an outcome ranking exercise. Once the clusters were defined, their characterization was provided based on a V-test. In a final step, a multi-class decision tree (MDT) based on relevant socio-demographic and clinical variables was built to allocate patients to a cluster.

RESULTS

In the ranking exercise 120 patients participated. The median age was 50.0 (IQR 25.0) years and 36.7% were female. Median PASI score was 2.4 (IQR 5.2) and median duration of psoriasis was 17.0 (IQR 20.0) years. Primary treatment varied from topicals to biologicals. We found three distinct patient value profiles in this cohort (QoL, cost and treatment). A MDT was built which had an accuracy of 64%.

CONCLUSION

We found three distinct patient value profiles in a cohort of psoriasis patients and patients can be easily assigned to one of these profiles based on a MDT. HCPs can use these profiles to steer psoriasis management accordingly allowing for a more goal-orientated approach.

Psoriasis: a focus on upcoming oral formulations

INTRODUCTION

Targeted therapies have greatly improved the quality of life of patients with psoriasis. Despite the extensive list of treatments available, multiple new drugs are being developed, especially oral therapies with potential advantages as regards comfort of administration. However, the efficacy and safety of these new oral therapies need to be improved to match those of novel biologics.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a narrative review of the oral therapies for psoriasis that are currently under development, from Jak inhibitors to oral IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, among others. A literature search was performed for articles published from 1 January 2020, to 6 June 2023.

EXPERT OPINION

The approval of deucravacitinib, the first Jak inhibitor for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, heralds a bright therapeutic future with multiple new oral formulations. A great number of oral treatments with singular mechanism of action, like A3AR agonists, HSP90 inhibitors, ROCK-2 inhibitors, oral TNF inhibitors, oral IL-23 inhibitors, oral IL-17 inhibitors, PD4 inhibitors (orismilast) and several Tyk2 inhibitors, are currently being evaluated in clinical trials and could be suitable for approval in the future. Growing variation in treatment modes of administration will allow dermatologists to better integrate patient preferences in the therapeutic decision process.

Bimekizumab in the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis: Focus on Patient Selection and Perspectives

Psoriasis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that significatively impairs patients' quality of life. Biological treatments are highly effective and safe and have led to breakthroughs in the management of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, therapeutic response can be unsatisfactory or lost with time, leading to discontinuation of treatment. Bimekizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F. The efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has been demonstrated in Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. Bimekizumab may offer some advantages over other biological treatments, making it especially indicated for certain patients. This narrative review aims to summarize the latest published evidence on the use of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-severe plaque psoriasis, focusing on patient selection and therapeutic perspectives. Bimekizumab has been shown to be more efficacious than adalimumab, secukinumab and ustekinumab in clinical trials, with high estimated probabilities of achieving complete (approximately 60%) or almost complete clearance (approximately 85%) of psoriasis at weeks 10-16, and a good safety profile. Response to bimekizumab is usually fast and maintained in the long term for both biologic-naive patients and those resistant to previous biologic treatments. The usual maintenance dose of 320 mg every 8 weeks makes bimekizumab especially convenient for non-compliant patients. Moreover, the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab have also been demonstrated in psoriasis affecting challenging-to-treat areas, psoriatic arthritis and hidradenitis suppurativa. In conclusion, dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab is a good therapeutic option for moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Illustrating Emerging Good Practices for Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Hypothetical Case Study of Systemic Biologic Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis

OBJECTIVES

Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a structured process to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of treatment options to support decision making. The ISPOR qBRA Task Force was recently established to provide recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of qBRA. This report presents a hypothetical case study illustrating how to apply the Task Force's recommendations toward a qBRA to inform the benefit-risk assessment of brodalumab at the time of initial marketing approval. The qBRA evaluated 2 dosing regimens of brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg twice weekly) compared with weight-based dosing of ustekinumab and placebo.

METHODS

We followed the 5 steps recommended by the Task Force. Attributes included treatment response (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index), suicidal ideation and behavior, and infections. Performance data were drawn from pivotal clinical trials of brodalumab. The qBRA used multicriteria decision analysis and preference weights from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, consideration of a subgroup (nail psoriasis), and the maintenance phase of treatment (52 weeks instead of 12).

RESULTS

Results from this hypothetical qBRA suggest that brodalumab 210 mg had a more favorable benefit-risk profile compared with ustekinumab and placebo. Ranking of brodalumab compared with ustekinumab was dependent on brodalumab's dose. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, as well as choice of attributes and length of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This case study demonstrates how to implement the ISPOR Task Force's good practice recommendations on qBRA.

Efficacy and safety of the selective TYK2 inhibitor, deucravacitinib, in Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: Subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, global phase 3 trial

Deucravacitinib is an oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor that demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo and apremilast in a global phase 3 trial (POETYK PSO-1; NCT03624127) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (N = 666). This report describes efficacy and safety in Japanese patients from this study (N = 66) who were randomly assigned to treatment with deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily (n = 32), placebo (n = 17), or apremilast 30 mg twice daily (n = 17). Patients randomized to placebo crossed over to deucravacitinib at Week 16. Patients randomized to apremilast who did not achieve ≥50% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50) score at Week 24 switched to deucravacitinib. The proportion of Japanese patients achieving ≥75% reduction from baseline in PASI (PASI 75) score was numerically higher with deucravacitinib versus placebo and apremilast at Week 16 (78.1% vs. 11.8% and 23.5%, respectively) and versus apremilast at Week 24 (78.1% vs. 29.4%). A numerically higher proportion of patients achieved a static Physician's Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with at least a two-point improvement from baseline (sPGA 0/1) with deucravacitinib versus placebo or apremilast at Week 16 (75.0% vs. 11.8% and 35.3%) and versus apremilast at Week 24 (75.0% vs. 29.4%). Findings for other clinical and patient-reported outcomes also favored deucravacitinib. Response rates were maintained through 52 weeks in the deucravacitinib group. Incidence rates for adverse events per 100 person-years (PY) in the Japanese patients were comparable across treatment groups through Week 52 (deucravacitinib, 336.8/100 PY; placebo, 321.0/100 PY; apremilast, 358.6/100 PY). The most frequently reported adverse event with deucravacitinib was nasopharyngitis. The efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib in Japanese patients was consistent with those in the global population in POETYK PSO-1.

A discrete choice experiment on oral and injection treatment preferences among moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients in Japan

Long-term psoriasis (PsO) management remains challenging. With growing variation in treatment efficacy, cost, and modes of administration, patient preferences for different treatment characteristics are not well understood. A discrete choice experiment (DCE), informed by qualitative patient interviews, was conducted to assess patient preferences for different attributes of PsO treatments; 222 adult patients with moderate-to-severe PsO receiving systemic therapy participated in the DCE web survey. Better long-term efficacy and lower cost were preferred (preference weights p < 0.05). Long-term efficacy had the highest relative importance (RI) and mode of administration was as important as the outcome attributes (efficacy and safety). Patients also preferred oral to injectable administration. In subgroup analyses by disease severity, residence, psoriatic arthritis as a comorbidity, and gender, the trends for each subgroup were the same as the overall population although the extent of RI for administration mode varied. Mode of administration was more important for patients with moderate versus severe disease, or rural versus urban residence. This DCE utilized attributes related to both oral and injectable treatment as well as a broad study population of systemic treatment users. Preferences were further stratified by patient characteristics to explore trends in different subgroups. Understanding the RI of treatment attributes and the attribute trade-offs acceptable to patients helps inform moderate-to-severe PsO systemic treatments decisions.

High Tolerability, Favorable Safety, and Subjects' Preference for a Single 200 mg/2 mL Tildrakizumab Injection: A Phase I, Open-Label, Randomized Crossover Trial in Healthy Volunteers

Introduction

Tildrakizumab 200 mg/2 mL pre-filled syringe is a new preparation of tildrakizumab that is developed to facilitate patients’ compliance. This phase I clinical trial compares the local tolerability, safety, and subjects’ preferred method of administration of tildrakizumab when administered as a new single 200 mg/2 mL subcutaneous injection or as two 100 mg/1 mL subcutaneous injections in healthy subjects.

Methods

Visual analogue scores were used to self-assess injection site pain immediately (< 1 min) after each administration and at 1 h and 48 h after each administration. Treatment injection site reactions were assessed at 1 h and 48 h after each administration. Treatment safety was monitored throughout the study period. Subjects’ preferred method of administration was assessed 4 weeks after the last administration (day 56).

Results

No statistically significant difference in visual analogue scores and injection site reactions was detected between the two treatments. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and there were no deaths or serious adverse events. Most subjects (61.5%) preferred the treatment when administered as a single 200 mg/2 mL subcutaneous injection rather than as two 100 mg/mL subcutaneous injections.

Conclusions

Administration of 200 mg tildrakizumab as a single 2 mL subcutaneous injection was safe, well tolerated, and preferred over two separate 100 mg/1 mL subcutaneous injections by healthy subjects. Eudract No. 2020-000183-37.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00789-9.

Predictive Value of Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 in the Development of Diastolic Dysfunction in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the proinflammatory monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1) in the diagnosis of asymptomatic diastolic dysfunction (DD) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA) was determined using clinical and laboratory parameters, and echocardiography was performed to estimate DD. Serum MCP-1 concentrations were elevated in PsA patients with DD diagnosed with ultrasound (median (25th percentile, 75th percentile): 366.6 pg/mL (283, 407.1 pg/mL) vs. 277.5 pg/mL (223.5, 319.1 pg/mL) in controls; $P<0.0017$ ). PsA patients with serum MCP-1 concentration higher than the cut-off value of 347.6 pg/mL had a 7.74-fold higher chance of developing DD than PsA patients with lower serum MCP-1 concentrations (controls), with a specificity of 86.36% and sensitivity of 55%, as verified using ultrasound. The group with MCP-1 concentrations above the cut-off value also showed a higher late peak diastolic mitral inflow velocity, A-wave value ( $P=0.000005$ ), E/E ${}^{\prime }$ ratio ( $P=0.00005$ ), and a lower E/A ratio ( $P=0.000002$ ), peak systolic left atrial reservoir strain, SA value ( $P=0.0066$ ), early peak diastolic displacement of the mitral septal annulus, E ${}^{\prime }$ wave value ( $P=0.003$ ), than controls. Systolic blood pressure ( $P=0.01$ ), LDL cholesterol concentration ( $P=0.012$ ), glucose concentration ( $P=0.011$ ), and DAPSA ( $P=0.0000$ ) increased in the PsA group with higher MCP-1 concentrations, although there were no differences in comorbidities and therapy between the groups compared. Thus, the serum MCP-1 concentration was a significant and independent prognostic indicator for asymptomatic DD in PsA patients ( $\text{area}\text{under}\text{the}\text{curve}=0.730$ , $P=0.001$ ). The DAPSA score in PsA patients might indicate the need for echocardiography and adjustment of anti-inflammatory treatment in terms of DD prevention.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Review on Novel Oral Therapies for Psoriasis

Currently, several classes of oral therapies for psoriasis are in use, in development, or in investigative stages. Standard non-biologic treatments for psoriasis, such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin, have generally unfavorable safety profiles and are not ideal for long-term use. This review will address the safety and efficacy of existing and novel oral therapies for psoriasis that target inflammatory pathways via modulation of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), Janus kinases (JAKs), sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P), A3 adenosine receptors, and rho-associated kinase 2 (ROCK2), with an emphasis on JAK inhibitors.

Comparative safety and benefit-risk profile of biologics and oral treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A network meta-analysis of clinical trial data

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment have not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term (12-16 weeks) and long-term (48-56 weeks) safety and benefit-risk profiles of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of phase II-IV randomized controlled trials of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatments was conducted (cutoff: July 1, 2020). Any adverse events (AEs), any serious AEs, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were compared using Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two and 7, respectively, randomized controlled trials were included in the short- and long-term NMAs, respectively. In the short-term NMA, the rates of any AEs were the lowest for tildrakizumab (posterior median: 46.0%), certolizumab (46.2%), and etanercept (49.1%). The rates of any serious AE were the lowest for certolizumab (0.8%), risankizumab (1.2%), and etanercept (1.6%). The rates of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were the lowest for risankizumab (0.5%), tildrakizumab (1.0%), and guselkumab (1.5%). In the long-term NMA, risankizumab had the lowest rates of all 3 outcomes (67.5%, 4.4%, and 1.0%, respectively) and the most favorable benefit-risk profile.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalizable to real-world populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-interleukin 23 agents were associated with low rates of safety events. Risankizumab had the most favorable benefit-risk profile in the long term.

Ixekizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: Patient adherence, satisfaction, and preferences

Ixekizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that exhibits its immunomodulatory effects by binding to interleukin 17A (IL-17A), a proinflammatory cytokine. It was approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016. Ixekizumab has demonstrated superiority in clinical trials against etanercept, with no significant difference in the side effect profile. The chronicity of psoriasis requires continual treatment to achieve disease clearance. Many factors may affect adherence to treatment including patient satisfaction, patient preferences, medication cost, and medication side effects. Limited data on patient adherence, satisfaction, and preference exists in formal literature. Often, surrogate measures must be used to extrapolate information regarding these measures. In this narrative review, we describe patient adherence, satisfaction, and preferences via both direct and surrogate measures as they relate to ixekizumab treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

The importance of understanding patient and physician preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics: a systematic review of discrete-choice experiments

Introduction: Treatment adherence continues to be a major challenge in psoriasis. Patient preference studies, especially discrete-choice experiments, are gaining popularity to gather insights into patient reported treatment outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to critically assess all discrete choice experiments exploring patients' and physicians' preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics.Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using keywords "psoriasis" and "preferences" to identify relevant literature. Discrete-choice experiments conducted in French or English from the year 2000 onwards, that focused on evaluating psoriasis treatment preferences in patients and/or physicians, were included. The relative importance of treatment attributes was assessed and studies were critically appraised using validated checklists.Results: Out of 987 articles identified, 25 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, patients and physicians prioritize efficacy-specific outcomes. Patients are shown to place greater importance to process attributes when compared to physicians, especially route and location of administration. Physicians focus primarily of efficacy attributes, however when the top two attributes are considered, safety outcomes increasingly become considered important. Of the studies, 60% conducted subgroup analysis, of which many reported associations between specific patient characteristics and preferences. Factors such as age, disease severity, and duration of condition significantly affected preferences for treatment attributes.Conclusions: This review provides insight into the types of attributes that patients and physicians value most, and therefore can help improve shared decision-making. The findings of this study also encourage regulatory agencies to continue integrating patient preferences in their decision-making.

Modeling Heterogeneity in Patients' Preferences for Psoriasis Treatments in a Multicountry Study: A Comparison Between Random-Parameters Logit and Latent Class Approaches

BACKGROUND

Either a random-parameters logit (RPL) or latent class (LC) model can be used to model or explain preference heterogeneity in discrete-choice experiment (DCE) data. The former assumes continuous distribution of preferences across the sample, while the latter assumes a discrete distribution. This study compared RPL and LC models to explore preference heterogeneity when analyzing patient preferences for psoriasis treatments.

METHODS

Using DCE data collected from respondents with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, we calculated and compared preference weights derived from RPL and LC models. We then compared how RPL and LC explain preference heterogeneity by exploring differences across subgroups defined by observed characteristics (i.e., country, age, gender, marital status, and psoriasis severity).

RESULTS

While RPL and LC models resulted in the same mean preference weights, different preference-heterogeneity patterns emerged from the two approaches. In both models, country of residence and self-reported disease severity could be linked to systematic differences in preferences. The RPL also identified gender and marital status, but not age, as sources of heterogeneity; the LC membership probability model indicated that age was a significant factor, but not gender or marital status.

CONCLUSIONS

Using data from a psoriasis patient survey to compare two widely used methods for exploring heterogeneity identified differences in results between stated-preferences: subgroup analysis in the RPL model and inclusion of subgroup characteristics in the class membership probability function of the LC model. Researchers should model data using the most adaptable approach to address the initial study question.

Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab Through 5 Years in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Long-Term Results from the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2 Phase-3 Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction

Ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A, is approved for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis through 5 years.

Methods

Data were integrated from the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2, randomized, double-blinded, phase-3 trials. Patients who continuously received the labeled ixekizumab dose, were static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) (0,1) responders at Week 12 and completed 60 weeks of treatment could enter the long-term extension (LTE) period. Patients could escalate to every-2-week dosing per investigator opinion. Efficacy and health outcomes included proportion of patients achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100, sPGA (0,1) and (0), absolute PASI ≤ 5/ ≤ 3/ ≤ 2/ ≤ 1 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (0,1). Results exclude patients who escalated to every-2-week dosing. A modified non-responder imputation method was used to account for missing data. Supplemental analyses include patients who escalated to every-2-week dosing and observed and multiple imputation results. Exposure-adjusted safety outcomes are also reported.

Results

Of 206 patients who entered the LTE periods, 172 completed treatment. At Week 60, PASI 75/90/100 responses were 94.7%, 85.0% and 62.1%, respectively, and at year 5 were 90.3%, 71.3% and 46.3%, respectively. Similarly, meaningful responses were achieved for the other efficacy and health measures. Among patients with PASI 100 through 5 years, 92% achieved DLQI (0,1), indicating no impact of skin disease on quality of life. During the LTE period, exposure-adjusted incidence rates were 31.4 per 100 patient-years for treatment-emergent adverse events and 6.8 per 100 patient-years for serious adverse events. No deaths were reported. No new or unexpected safety findings were noted.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate 80 mg ixekizumab maintains long-term efficacy and a safety profile consistent with previous data in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis through 5 years of treatment.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, UNCOVER-1: NCT01474512, UNCOVER-2: NCT01597245.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-020-00367-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Understanding Treatment Preferences in Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis in the USA: Results from a Cross-Sectional Patient Survey

Introduction

The goal of psoriasis (PsO) treatment is to improve quality of life by lessening the extent and severity of the disease. Traditional systemic drugs and biologic agents are used for the treatment of moderate to severe PsO and recent research emphasizes understanding patient goals and preferences for treatment, to improve overall outcomes.

Methods

An online survey was administered to collect data from 500 adult patients with moderate to severe PsO in the USA. Patients were required to have current or previous systemic therapy use and were excluded if aged 75 or older. Data on demographics, disease burden, treatment use, and patients’ treatment goals and expectations were collected. Descriptive and multivariate analyses examined the factors that predict treatment goals. Subgroup analyses were performed for age, gender, severity, comorbid psoriatic arthritis (PsA), location of PsO, and biologic experience. All analyses were conducted using SAS v9.4 and R v3.4.

Results

Of the 500 adult patients included, 71.6% reported moderate PsO. Patients had a mean (SD) score of 62.4 (23.0) for skin pain, 60.0 (26.3) for fatigue, and 6.6 (2.1) for itch on a scale of 0–100, 0–100, and 0–10 respectively. Mean (SD) score for quality of life (QoL), assessed using Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), was 18.3 (7.3), with more than 90% having moderate/very large/extremely large effect on life. The majority of patients considered “keeping skin clear for 2–3 years” (94%), “overall relief of symptoms” (93.8%), and effective in clearing certain areas” (92.2%) as important attributes of a systemic treatment. Overall, patients expected 50% clear skin in about 2 weeks and completely clear skin in about 4 weeks.

Conclusions

Overall, in this study with more than 70% of patients with moderate disease, patients reported high burden of disease and impact on QoL. This study demonstrates the importance of considering patient perspectives in treatment decisions that are critical for optimizing patient outcomes.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company.

Psoriasis treatment patterns: a retrospective claims study

Objective: The objective was to characterize psoriasis treatment patterns, including estimating persistence and describing subsequent events (i.e. switching and restarting) for all systemic therapies. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized Truven MarketScan databases from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016 to investigate persistence, switching and restarting in new users of systemic psoriasis medications. Descriptive statistics, time-to-event analyses and a Cox proportional hazards regression were conducted. Results: A total of 5205 patients met inclusion criteria. Regardless of treatment type, >50% lost persistence by 12 months. Patients newly initiating acitretin or non-TNF biologic experienced the highest loss of persistence (85.2%, 73.8%, respectively). Patients initiating a TNF-α inhibitor or apremilast experienced the lowest loss (51.8%, 56.4% respectively). Treatment type had a statistically significant effect on persistence loss (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.91). Restarting was the most commonly observed event for patients on an oral or biologic (60.2%, 79.9%, respectively). The most common switch from an oral was to a TNF-α inhibitor, while apremilast often followed biologics. Conclusion: Most patients lost persistence on initial treatment by 12 months, and the majority restarted treatment. This may indicate poor compliance or the cyclical nature of psoriasis. More patients switched from an oral to biologic than vice versa, likely due to formulary design and preference for orals. Studies are needed to investigate underlying reasons and patient characteristics that differentiate treatment utilization.

Patient and Physician Preferences for Therapy Characteristics for Psoriasis: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Japan

BACKGROUND

With progress being made in the treatment of psoriasis, a variety of clinical research and treatment options are being pursued. This study used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate treatment characteristic preferences for both patients and physicians in Japan. Subgroup analysis was also applied in order to examine differences within the range of patients and within the range of physicians.

METHODS

The DCE was developed with the input of clinical experts in the treatment of psoriasis to ensure inclusion of the most relevant attributes at appropriate levels in a way that is understandable to both physicians and patients. The study was conducted on parallel samples of Japanese physicians (n = 161) and Japanese psoriasis patients (n = 306) through an online panel. For each sample, a conditional logit statistical model and subgroup analysis were then performed to estimate respondent preferences for treatment attributes.

RESULTS

The overall findings are that better treatment efficacy as measured by proportion of patients achieving 90% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 90), lower risk of adverse events and the availability of a bio-holiday are important decision factors for both patients and physicians. Low injection frequency is less of a priority for both samples. Also, while both groups demonstrate a preference to receive the treatment injections at a clinic by a healthcare professional rather than self-injection at home, this is more pronounced for the patient sample. The physician sample shows considerably more emphasis on the type of injection, though both samples prefer subcutaneous injections to intravenous injections.

IMPLICATIONS

This study reveals the importance of addressing both clinical effectiveness and process factors in systemic, non-topical psoriasis treatments to gain acceptance by both physicians and patients. As well as efficacy (as measured by PASI 90), which remains a consistent priority in treatment, administration and development of new treatments should also consider process factors such as the mode of administration and possibility for a bio-holiday.

Patient preference for biologic treatments of psoriasis in Japan

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune disease affecting skin which may also manifest in nails and joints. Several biologic treatments have been approved in Japan for psoriasis. Each biologic has a different profile for efficacy and safety, including different dosing regimens and co‐payment considerations which may complicate treatment decisions made by patients and physicians during short consultations. Elucidating patient preference is expected to contribute to shared decision‐making between patients and physicians to optimize treatment satisfaction and outcomes. However, the number of studies investigating this in Japan is very limited. The study used a discrete choice experiment methodology to elicit patient preferences for hypothetical options in an experimental framework. Participants were asked to choose their preferred treatment option from two hypothetical choices, defined by different levels of six attributes (i.e. early onset of efficacy, long‐term efficacy, sustained efficacy after drug withdrawal, dosing convenience, co‐payment and risk of serious infection). The survey included 16 treatment choice scenarios and was completed by 395 participants. Across all participants, the attribute regarded as most important was sustained efficacy after drug withdrawal, followed by dosing convenience, co‐payment, long‐term efficacy, early onset of efficacy and risk of serious infection. The study found that patients prefer treatments which have durable efficacy and lower treatment burden characterized as fewer injection frequency and lower co‐payment. These results may be helpful to understand patient preference for biologic treatments used for psoriasis in Japan and contribute to shared decision‐making between patients and physicians to improve patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes.

Biologics for the primary care physician: Review and treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 7.5 million people in the United States. The disease results in significant suffering, morbidity, and economic impact. Psoriasis is a multifaceted disease with a strong genetic component. Genetic data has revealed the presence of particular risk alleles in patients with psoriasis. Triggers of the disease have been elucidated and include factors such as trauma, obesity, infection, stress, and medications. At its core, psoriasis is a result of a dysfunctional immune response with T-cells at the center of immunogenesis. Clinically, psoriasis is characterized by discrete, erythematous scaly plaques. These lesions are often found on extensor surfaces, especially the elbows and knees. Although extensor surfaces are the prototypical destination of lesions, psoriasis may affect any area of the skin including the scalp, intertriginous areas, nails, palms, and soles. Location of lesions are important in assessing the impact on quality of life for patients. Diagnosis of psoriasis can typically be made clinically based on characteristic history and physical examination findings. In rare cases, biopsy may be needed to rule out other papulosquamous disease. Histologic findings of psoriasis can be non-specific and include marked epidermal hyperplasia, dilated vessels within the dermal papilla, and elongated rete ridges. Importantly, psoriasis is a systemic disease and organ systems outside of the skin must be considered. Co-morbidities of psoriasis include psoriatic arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric disease, inflammatory bowel disease, neoplasms, and ocular disease. Management of psoriasis depends on the severity of the disease. In mild to moderate cases, topical medications are the cornerstone of treatment. Topical corticosteroids are the most commonly used and have limited systemic effects due to the localized application of medication. In moderate to severe cases of psoriasis, topical medications are ineffective and not feasible. Phototherapy and non-biologic systemic medications have been useful treatments; however, phototherapy is time consuming and non-biologic systemics have only modest response rates. In the last decade, biologic medications have become an important component of care for treating moderate to severe psoriasis. These medications target various cytokines responsible for psoriasis manifestations such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), interleukin-12, interleukin-23, and interleukin-17. In the past 15 years, numerous biologic medications have been granted FDA approval, with the majority approved in the past several years. Some of the commonly used biologics include etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, ustekinumab, and tildrakizumab. Given the wealth of new biologics, current treatment guidelines have rapidly become outdated. This review provides summarized information of landmark trials that led to the approval of these medications.